You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

This topic came up once before and I was informed by several members of the forum that race doesn't exist... so I let it go.

Let's say you are Ecuadorian. You and I (Korean) could be more genetically related than you and another Ecuadorian. A biological concept in genetics says that there is much more genetic variation in subpopulations than compared to the general population. The Human population is not genetically diverse enough to have distinct "races" (the original meaning of the word was "subspecies" and that is how it was originally used. Are there REALLY subspecies of humans?). The superficial physical differences are adaptations to specific environments. For example, people in the more southern parts of the world will be darker skinned (ancestrally speaking) , they need more sun protection while some people have lighter skin because in the northern parts, it is hard to get vitamin D from the sun so the lighter skin helps them get more sun exposure. I could probably look it up later for sources and verification. That is why some people say races don't exist and it's a social construct because it's like saying that there are subspecies of humans. However, it's ok to say that there are genetic differences because of adaptations to specific environments. Along with the Sickle Cell Anemia, the Jewish community has a comparable gene for TB. If the individual gets both genes, then he will get Tay Sachs.

Trying to compare race and intelligence would probably be considered inherently racist because of all the generalizations that would have to made in order to reach any sort of conclusion.

Let's say you are Ecuadorian. You and I (Korean) could be more genetically related than you and another Ecuadorian. A biological concept in genetics says that there is much more genetic variation in subpopulations than compared to the general population. The Human population is not genetically diverse enough to have distinct "races" (the original meaning of the word was "subspecies" and that is how it was originally used. Are there REALLY subspecies of humans?).

While this is true, and I agree that the term 'race' is antiquated and clearly not adapted to human diversity the fact is that when talking about specific traits wether there are human races or not is not the point at issue. To use a simple example it's like saying that a subgroup of people will ultimately contain as much blondes as another because it's possible that two individuals from 'different' 'sub groups' (through at least partial geographical isolation) have more overlapping genes than two individuals from the same, say, ethnic group.
It's about averages. And in this particular case about how we define intelligence.
IQ is a model created by westerners and so one has to assume that a test born in one type of culture is more likely (even though it doesn't HAVE to be the case here) to be easier for individuals whose culture overlap in the right places with the original culture from which the tests archetypes emerged.
But the argument that 'it's a test made for white people and that's why !' isn't conclusive, arguing against A doesnt mean i'm arguing for its opposite. The world isn't as simple as that and some people should try to remember that when facing an emotionally charged topic such as this one. For example, yes, asians test higher than 'westerners' on average. But that doesn't mean the idea of a cultural influence is wrong either. Someone can create a game, it'll give hir an advantage, but that doesn't mean noone else can beat them at their test. By extrapolation we can apply this to whole cultures.

Then there is the fact that alot of famous inventors, innovators, geniuses etc. in history happen to have iq ranging from higher than average to extremely high (and rare), yet you don't hear much claims about, say einstein-types having <100 iqs.
But one also has to realise that if iq is seen as 'positive', there'll be a bias with on one side people not publishing low or even average scores and over exposing higher than average scores. There is also a clear tendency for people to
1. Lie about their scores\ Pretty much assume ridiculously high scores for any historical genius
2. Take the test more than once, when the test was standardized based on the results of first time test takers.
3. assume that online, non standardized tests with flawed scoring methods count, especially since these tests will often give overinflated scores to make people 'buy the full report'

So yeah, there's basically a sort of megalomaniacal self organised delusion around iq scores. Lets face it people, even assuming that this is clearly a place with a non random distribution of people and that threads with 'iq or intelligence' in the title attract an ever more select crowd, I do not believe half of the claimed iqs I see on threads like 'what is your iq' as even remotly accurate for a minute.

And.. the iq obsession of course produces an equal and opposed reaction of 'whatever dude, iq doesn't mean anything', (tendency fed by aristocratic 'i have a high iq but who cares' and 'i wish i had a high iq and was pretty but I doubt myself so i'll belittle iq types, among others)

THEN add the whole phobia about daring to say that people might be different and you get the usual thread where it's more about ad hominem attacks than actually discussing the point, and so called rational people (yes orangey, i'm talking about you) display how bad they are with dealing with emotions.
It's cute but really, not productive.

I say lets link studies and comment them in a few words then ask the next person's opinion. Lets make pro/con lists that don't have an agenda and obviously try to prove point A, whatever it may be.
IF there's not enough information, well, fine. But at least we'd have tried and would prove to be civilized people.

Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

Theory is always superseded by Fact...
... In theory.

“I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”Richard Feynman's last recorded words

"Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

I definitely agree with you on most accounts but I am still hesitant to say that black people are dumber than white people (as an example) because are we considering the variable factors like environment, nutrition, SES that may influence the optimal intelligence, or are we just considering the averages in general? If we did find out that group A was smarter than group (without an agenda), wouldn't others use that to their own advantages. It may not be bad just on the basis of science but I would argue that the ramifications would most likely be negative. I guess we could talk about it theoretically without the concerns of the ramifications because it is not taking place in the real world. It's still a very fine line though.

I definitely agree with you on most accounts but I am still hesitant to say that black people are dumber than white people (as an example) because are we considering the variable factors like environment, nutrition, SES that may influence the optimal intelligence, or are we just considering the averages in general? If we did find out that group A was smarter than group (without an agenda), wouldn't others use that to their own advantages. It may not be bad just on the basis of science but I would argue that the ramifications would most likely be negative. I guess we could talk about it theoretically without the concerns of the ramifications because it is not taking place in the real world. It's still a very fine line though.

1. In answer to your worries about the consequences of a potential 'scientific basis for racism'. I do obviously understand the issue, but I believe that a society that treats people as children who can't be trusted with unbiased information is exactly the sort of society where you couldn't trust people with information. It's kind of a self fulfilling societal geshtalt.
2.I never said that black people are dumber than white people. I just said we should look at the data. Also I merely hinted at the fact that iq, in western culture at least is correlated with what is generally recognized as intelligence, but I also pointed out some of the ways in which a clear societal bias can be created. And this bias clearly exists just looking at the estimated iqs of historical geniuses as they are statistically unlikely given the lower population and very limited access to education in these days or self reported iq scores.
3. Lets not forget that bias can go both ways. Often at the same time. And distort the data. Getting emotional about the issue as some people do certaintly does'nt help to resolve anything.

Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

Theory is always superseded by Fact...
... In theory.

“I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”Richard Feynman's last recorded words

"Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

THEN add the whole phobia about daring to say that people might be different and you get the usual thread where it's more about ad hominem attacks than actually discussing the point, and so called rational people (yes orangey, i'm talking about you) display how bad they are with dealing with emotions.
It's cute but really, not productive.

I'm sorry but saying that black people might be "different" in the sense that they are biologically less capable of scoring as high as "white" people on IQ tests is racism. It's not my own definition, it's just true. Mine was not a reaction to just the fact of "difference," but rather the suggestion that this difference is inherent.

Originally Posted by EcK

2.I never said that black people are dumber than white people. I just said we should look at the data. Also I merely hinted at the fact that iq, in western culture at least is correlated with what is generally recognized as intelligence, but I also pointed out some of the ways in which a clear societal bias can be created. And this bias clearly exists just looking at the estimated iqs of historical geniuses as they are statistically unlikely given the lower population and very limited access to education in these days or self reported iq scores.

Saying that black people are genetically less capable of scoring as high as other "races" on IQ tests is the same as saying that black people are dumber than white people.

I'm sorry but saying that black people might be "different" in the sense that they are biologically less capable of scoring as high as "white" people on IQ tests is racism. It's not my own definition, it's just true. Mine was not a reaction to just the fact of "difference," but rather the suggestion that this difference is inherent.

No its not, I'm not sure its even racialism, racism is supposedly racialism or racial ideology and power, noting differential abilities and IQ patterns isnt racist by that measure and like I say I'm not even sure its racialist, ie a consequence of ethnicity or "race" as an ideology.

Saying that black people are genetically less capable of scoring as high as other "races" on IQ tests is the same as saying that black people are dumber than white people.

I never said it was. Read more carefully. I said, "saying that black people might be 'different' in the sense that they are biologically less capable of scoring as high as 'white' people on IQ tests is racism." Not that noting differential abilities and IQ patterns is in and of itself racist. It's the arguments from the heritability of IQ as it applies to race that are racist.

— n
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

— n
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

Let's say I think white people are smarter on average than black people, but I don't think white people are better because black people have other worthwhile skills that many white people lack, such as the ability to jump high and have a very good sense of rhythm.

Would that still make me a racist?

Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.